Introduction
In the ongoing struggle to balance ecological preservation with human development, the role of the judiciary often becomes a pivotal point of intervention. The Supreme Court of India’s landmark ruling in In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2022), mandating a minimum one-kilometre Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around all protected forest areas, was initially celebrated as a progressive leap in conservation jurisprudence¹. However, the decision soon met with considerable resistance from states, local communities, and development bodies. In 2025, the Supreme Court will reconsider and amend its previous order in a more nuanced manner, marking a critical turning point. This reexamination shows a growing comprehension of environmental governance in India as well as judicial sensitivity to local realities.
The 2022 Mandate: Rationale and Repercussions
The 2022 order emerged from the Court’s desire to provide uniformity and clarity in implementing ESZs, which serve as buffer zones around national parks and wildlife sanctuaries under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986². The directive to establish a mandatory one-kilometre no-construction buffer zone around all protected areas aimed to counter encroachments, pollution, and unregulated development¹.
However, the blanket nature of the order overlooked the geographical, demographic, and socio-economic diversity of the country. Hilly states like Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand—where human habitation exists in close proximity to protected areas—raised concerns about displacement, loss of livelihoods, and restrictions on traditional activities. The rigidity of the order threatened to disrupt the lives of thousands residing near forests, many of whom are tribal and forest-dwelling communities with constitutional and statutory protections under the Forest Rights Act, 2006³.
2025 Revisited: A Shift Towards Contextual Governance
Because of the criticism and real challenges in putting the law into practice, the Supreme Court looked again at the requirement in the same Godavarman case in 2025⁴. This recalibration was influenced by inputs from states, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), and environmentalists. The Court accepted that a one-size-fits-all approach to ESZ demarcation was neither feasible nor just.
The revised order allowed states to propose site-specific ESZ limits based on scientific assessments, ecological carrying capacities, and socio-economic dependencies. It directed Expert Committees at the state level to demarcate ESZs using participatory processes, with local community consultations made mandatory⁵. The Court reiterated that while conservation remains paramount, development and habitation cannot be completely frozen, particularly where forests and human settlements are intricately interlinked.
Importantly, the Court upheld that where eco-sensitive zones have already been notified under the 2011 MoEFCC Guidelines, the one-kilometre rule would not apply⁵. Moreover, exemptions were clarified for eco-sensitive areas abutting international borders (such as in Arunachal Pradesh or Ladakh) that hold strategic importance. This marks a clear evolution from a doctrinaire judicial command to a more flexible and context-sensitive constitutional environmentalism.
Constitutional and Legal Reflections
This revised interpretation of ESZs brings into play key constitutional provisions under Article 21 (Right to Life), Article 48A (Directive Principles on Environment), and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty to Protect Nature) of the Constitution of India⁶. The Court reaffirmed that environmental protection cannot be separated from human dignity and livelihood.
The 2025 judgment resonates with the doctrine of sustainable development—endorsed consistently by Indian courts since Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)⁷. It aligns with the precautionary principle, encouraging preventive action in the face of ecological uncertainty, while avoiding unreasonable impositions that could infringe upon the right to occupation and property. Furthermore, it reflects a robust reading of the public trust doctrine, under which the state is seen as a trustee of natural resources but must operate in consultation with the people who co-inhabit these landscapes.
The Way Forward: Challenges and Opportunities
While the revision offers a more grounded and consultative model, challenges remain in its implementation. States now bear the responsibility to set up expert bodies with adequate technical expertise and impartiality. Forest Departments must work transparently, and development interests should not hijack the ESZ notification process. There remains a risk of states exploiting the revised flexibility to dilute conservation norms.
On the brighter side, the revised order has the potential to foster inclusive environmental governance. It opens avenues for integrating traditional ecological knowledge and local stewardship in wildlife conservation. Moreover, this model can serve as a prototype for balancing biodiversity protection with climate justice, especially in light of India’s commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992)⁸ and the Paris Agreement (2015)⁹, which advocate for community-led, ecosystem-based conservation approaches.
Conclusion
The 2005 Review of the Supreme Court’s ESZ order shows how the judiciary is evolving its approach to environmental issues, taking into account both the needs of nature and the principles of democracy. The shift from rigidity to reflexivity in environmental jurisprudence is a promising development for India’s ecological future. As climate change, habitat fragmentation, and biodiversity loss continue to pose existential threats, this model of context-aware conservation, rooted in law and community participation, may offer the most sustainable path forward. The Court’s revised stance does not weaken the conservation mandate but rather strengthens it by making it more adaptable, legitimate, and people-centric.
References:
- In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2022) 10 SCC 1.
- The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
- Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
- In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, Supreme Court Order, 2025 (Revisited).
- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Guidelines for Declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zones around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, 2011.
- Constitution of India, Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g).
- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715.
- Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992.
Plain text: www.cbd.int - The Paris Agreement, 2015, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Plain text: www.unfccc.int
